Complainant asserts that Town violated FOIA open meetings requirements when it held executive session to discuss subdivision applications. Town’s agenda properly posted and noticed the executive session but did not state the purpose. Town asserted that executive session was for purpose of receiving legal advice. After going into executive session and receiving legal advice, the Council discussed the applications for about an hour and voted on the applications before coming out of executive session. They re-voted at the public continued public meeting. Meeting minutes did not reflect legal advice. HELD: Executive Session was held for the proper purpose of receiving legal advice. However, Council violated FOIA by not listing the purpose of the executive session on the agenda, discussing applications during executive session and not properly reflecting legal advice in minutes.

Complainant asserts City violated FOIA’s open records requirements by denying FOIA request for documents relating to the City Water Department on the basis of “potential litigation.” City asserted that conversations with Complainant made City believe Complainant would file suit against the City as the documents are released. City provided no other reasons for FOIA denial. HELD: City violated FOIA because they provided no evidence of a “realistic and tangible threat of litigation” characterized by objective factors in support of the FOIA denial.

Welcome

Visitors to this webpage may access Attorney General Opinions issued from 1995 to present. Most of the Opinions during that period relate to disputes concerning access to “public records” under, and/or alleged violations of the “open meetings” provisions of, Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Those Opinions may be searched by using key words, or by category or year/month using the drop-down menus located on the left side of this webpage. Non-FOIA Opinions may be accessed by clicking on the “Other AG Opinions” link below the drop-down menus.